Page 1 of 1
Curriculum

Posted:
Sat Feb 07, 2004 8:25 am
by Mickey
Does SMU offer the courses that athletes are of interest to athletes? Below is a breakdown of the majors listed by the 16 recruits:
Business Related- 6
Physical Therapy - 3
Undecided- 3
Cinematography-1 B. Chase
Kinesiology- 1 Henderson
Sports Psycology-1
Education (eye on becoming a coach)- 1 Haynes
Re: Curriculum

Posted:
Sat Feb 07, 2004 9:00 am
by Mickey
Try this again.
Does SMU offer the courses of interest to HS athletes? Below is a breakdown of the majors listed by the 16 new signees:
Business Related-6 Eckert, Martin, Lobo, Griffin, Hawkins, McCray
Undecided- 3 McKinney, Lowery, Lindley
Physical Therapy- 3 Romo, Blackmon, Johnson
Cineamatography- 1 B. Chase
Kinesiology- 1 Henderson
Sports Psychology- 1 V. Chase
Education (eye on becoming a coach)- 1 Haynes
It appears that SMU does not offer areas of study of interest to Romo, Johnson, Blackmon, Henderson, or Haynes.
Apparently many of these athletes are interested in sports after they are done playing, and SMU does not offer them the majors they want. Are we losing recruits because of this?
Re: Curriculum

Posted:
Sat Feb 07, 2004 10:59 am
by CoxSMU
I've heard this complaint before. Some people think that a lack of a "sports management" type degree has hurt SMU. I don't think it has really hurt us yet, but if we ever did get truly competitive with bowl games and such, maybe it would hurt us.
Re: Curriculum

Posted:
Sat Feb 07, 2004 11:04 am
by Stallion
could you explain that last sentence for the slower thinkers among us?
Re: Curriculum

Posted:
Sat Feb 07, 2004 11:07 am
by NavyCrimson
stallion - you're a riot!!!!
lol :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
<small>[ 02-07-2004, 08:08 AM: Message edited by: Navy&Crimson ]</small>
Re: Curriculum

Posted:
Sat Feb 07, 2004 1:22 pm
by SoCal_Pony
Stallion,
That is a hilarious post, but unfortunately symptomatic of the problems facing SMU.
Given our location, reputation and facilities, we should be THE premier non-BCS football school in the nation.
Anybody dare name a non-BCS school with more potential than SMU?
Re: Curriculum

Posted:
Sat Feb 07, 2004 2:46 pm
by Hoop Fan
Lets see, BYU. They are a wealthy school that draws 65,000 per game. They recruit nationally, so it doesn't matter all that much that Utah is not big for high school football. If they havent already proven it, TCU has all the characteristics we have. I for one really like their stadium. Regardless, I think your point is a good one, SMU is underachieving big time.
As for curriculum, it kills us. There is no doubt about it. Look at TCU's website sometime and see all the study programs that we lack. I wish jock majors were not necessary to compete in D-1, but unfortunately they are, and SMU can't change that fact alone.
<small>[ 02-07-2004, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Hoop Fan ]</small>
Re: Curriculum

Posted:
Sat Feb 07, 2004 3:17 pm
by GoRedGoBlue
curriculum does hurt us, period.
Re: Curriculum

Posted:
Sat Feb 07, 2004 3:59 pm
by CoxSMU
Originally posted by Stallion:
could you explain that last sentence for the slower thinkers among us?
My last sentence?
Re: Curriculum

Posted:
Sat Feb 07, 2004 4:27 pm
by gostangs
It is the single biggest obstacle for us now, and has been for some time. We need to all harp on this like a broken record to anyone we know with the influence to change it -
Re: Curriculum

Posted:
Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:49 pm
by BUS
You guys have hit on a reat point. Back in the day, SMU had Physical Education as a major and people like myself enjoyed the course of study. No not the easy classes like Chemistry, Anatomy and Biology but some of the others.
There are weed out courses in every major. P.E. too.
I have sent letters to Dr. Turner about Sports Management or bringing back PE. Education is still an option given that that you first have to have a degree in a "field". ( English, History, Chemistry - something.) Then you take additional classes for teaching.
SMU NEEDS SOMETHING.
Look at RICE. You will be suprised to find out their second tier majors.
Re: Curriculum

Posted:
Sat Feb 07, 2004 7:04 pm
by SoCal_Pony
Originally posted by Hoop Fan:
Lets see, BYU. They are a wealthy school that draws 65,000 per game. They recruit nationally, so it doesn't matter all that much that Utah is not big for high school football. If they havent already proven it, TCU has all the characteristics we have. I for one really like their stadium. Regardless, I think your point is a good one, SMU is underachieving big time.
HP,
If you consider Mormons national recruiting, so be it. I would rather have the state of Texas any day of the week. I have been to Utah. We win out on location alone. IMO that is the main reason Bennett has out-recruited BYU.
As for TCU, their school simply doesn’t match ours in reputation or facilities (have I been going to the wrong stadium all these years?). Most importantly is location. Cowtown isn’t Dallas and it never will be. Once again, advantage SMU.
So while we may quibble over one school (I refuse to take your TCU comments seriously), we can agree that SMU is underachieving big time.
Re: Curriculum

Posted:
Sun Feb 08, 2004 12:01 pm
by CoxSMU
Can you major in "General Studies" or "University Studies" here? I know that at places like Oklahoma, LSU, and Texas, you can major in General Studies. Half the football players do and graduate in that...